Sullivan’s definition of conservatism is the defense of all the things that make Andrew Sullivan happy, such as gay marriage, worshipping Reagan and Thatcher, and most of all, having everybody defend his property rights while expecting nothing in return. Perhaps when he finally understands Hobbes he’ll recognize that he’s not really a conservative and that all those things he so thoroughly derides in this book are the essence of American conservatism.

The point where Mr. Sullivan lost me was in his distinction between true Conservatives and radicalized Conservatives. He writes, `It [conservativism] never seeks to return to a golden age or a distant past’ Really? Returning to the past is generally one of, if not THE defining feature of Conservativism. The author might want to read `The Conservative Mind’ by Russell Kirk or `The Conservative Intellectual Movement’ by George H. Nash to see an endless parade of Conservative intellectuals pining for some bygone era. Later, the author states that, “…Conservativism’s great philosophical advantage over liberalism [is that] it can be more flexible.” William F. Buckley famously stated that Conservatives `stands athwart history, yelling Stop’. Conservatives have stood in the way of civil rights, woman’s suffrage and now gay rights. To a Conservative the American family is mom, dad and 2.2 children. Understanding of right and wrong can only be derived from Judeo-Christians teachings and moral relativity is the bane of an ethical society. Sounds about as flexible as a brick. One final jaw dropper is Mr. Sullivan’s claim that `Conservatives, after all, hate war.’ Somehow I think that the modern Conservative movement has completely left Andrew Sullivan behind. He considers neither religious fundamentalist nor libertarians to be true Conservatives when in fact they are the base.

Another argument that the author uses is that George W. Bush isn’t a true Conservative but this leads back to the question of what a true Conservative is. John Dean and Bruce Bartlett both used this same tactic. My opinion is that George W. Bush is the reductio ad absurdum of Conservativism. Bush is anti-intellectual, pro defense spending and singularly obsessed with lowering taxes. He also shares the paleo-conservatives love of religion as a panacea for society’s moral failings. No man could possibly meet all definitions of a Conservative because many are mutually exclusive. The problem with Bush is that he is a classic ideologue who surrounds himself with like minded ideologues. Even Reagan who was the prototypical Conservative was pragmatic enough to raise taxes when it needed to be done. Bush on the other hand would stick to his agenda until the world came crashing down in a smoldering heap. This doesn’t make him non-Conservative it just makes him inflexible.

Despite my criticisms this is a really terrific book and a pleasure to read. In an age where the spokespeople for Conservativism range from repugnant (Tom DeLay) to psychopathic (Ann Coulter) and all points in between (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly etc) it’s refreshing to see a Conservative with class, dignity and actual writing talent. I could see myself sitting down with Andrew Sullivan and having an enjoyable conversation, agreeing on some points and disagreeing on others. The only real demerit I give the book is that the most interesting writing is in the first half of the book and it loses steam in the second half. Still, I have no qualms about giving it a solid five stars. It would be wonderful to see Andrew Sullivan’s brand of Conservativism replace the current toxic blend.

Sullivan is truly a fascinating man. A homosexual, British, Catholic who voted for John Kerry in 2004. Sullivan lives with HIV and I say that only to say that it doesn’t stop him from living life to the fullest, from speaking passionately about the America he still believes in, his adoptive country. That is where the differences begin. But as I read his book I felt his ideas resonate with me strongly.

The term conservatism has been taken over in the last 15 years or so and abused and Andrew Sullivan’s mission is to take it back. If you lament what conservatism used to be, and dream of what it truly can be, this is the book for you. His main theme is that our politics should be a politics of doubt, that is, a realization that individual humans don’t have all the answers for everyone else at any point in time. Thus the beauty of the freedom that has been written into our constitution here in America.

If you know of a conservative or a fundamentalist, who is thick-headed, blindly passionate about their views, not willing to consider error in their own perspective or listen to sound reason, this is the book that just might break them down. So do be careful.

Other Information: It is a quick read with large margins and double-spacing and it is a page-turner. It is the kind of book you will want to pass on to your friends and family.

It’s pretty clear that when Sullivan refers to the “the current [Christian] fundamentalist supremacy” what he really means is “Protestants.”

Sullivan is a Catholic who denounces “Religious Extremism” of the evangelical right as part of what’s wrong with conservatism. Trouble is, his critiques of what he calls “religious extremism” aren’t all that different than what Catholics believe about all protestants.

For example, one characteristic of his so-called ‘religious nuts’ in the party is their more “literal” interpretation of the bible. Guess which branch of Christianity has the least literal interpretation of the bible? If you guessed “Catholiism,” you’re correct!

Which branches of the Christian faith fit Andrew’s description of ‘fundamentalist?’ Well, pretty much every protestant denomination, at least according to his definition. It just so happens that the greater emphasis on scripture (rather than church custom, prescription, and ritual) is what DEFINES protestantism.

“Sola scriptura” was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a definitive principle of Protestants today.

Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, in which doctrine is taught by the teaching authority of the Church, drawing on the “Deposit of Faith”, based on what they consider to be “Sacred Tradition”, of which Scripture is a subset.

It’s hard to believe this is just pure coincidence: that what Sullivan (a Roman Catholic) defines as “religious extremism” just happens to be foundational principles of protestantism.

His mistake is a common one among Catholics: he never differentiates between “protestants” and “fundamentalists.” They aren’t the same thing, but Sullivan doesn’t give any examples of non-fundamentalist protestants.Nor does he cite a Catholic example of ‘religious extremism.’ Thus, what he never actually SAYS (but clearly believes) is that the conservative movement is too protestant.

While he goes on at some length about “religious extremists,” virtually none of the extremism he mentions seems to be rooted in Catholicism. They are ALL offshoots of the protestant faith.

There are critical differences also between conservatives and fundamentalists: one believes in human imperfection, the other in the need for perfection now and forever; one believes in human nature, the other in remaking human nature by an omnipotent God or State; one seeks to preseve the past, the other is about erasing it and starting over afresh (p.72). These differences should lead to parting of the ways, not in radical fundamentalists appropriating what it means to be a conservative.

Today’s “conservatives” are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce their vision of virtue (see Iran and Rick Santorum.) This in no way fits the tradition of conservatives who believe freedom is the only condition in which humanity can come to approach virtue. This is not a political book per se, it is deeply philosophical and must be read by more that the politically inclined.

Sullivan argues, for example, that using religion “as a regulatory scheme to keep human beings in line, or as a unifying principle to herd people to the ballot box, is a profound blasphemy.” For a person of faith such a denigration of faith-as-politics should be deeply distrubing, yet the radical fundamentalist finds no contradiction.

Sullivan is exceptionally well versed in the works of Hobbes, Montaigne, Leo Straus (who receives a reprieve from other interpreters) and the genius of Michael Oakeshott. His ease with these thinkers and his ability to relate and apply conservative principles to current events contributes a refreshingly candid and brilliant reappraisal of the soul of conservatism as an attitude towards life. Burke and Kirk would certainly appreciate this addition. Most of today’s conservatives, and liberals, could learn alot from this book too.

Sullivan assertions are so much more pragmatic, as well–he can be accredited for his respect towards practically everyone in the political spectrum. Even his blatant attack on Robert George’s idea of “natural law,” which consumed most of the first half of Sullivan’s book, was notably well-rounded and treated with considerable respect towards the Fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States.

With that in perspective, everyone–Democrats, Republicans, Fundamentalists, Atheists, seniors and teenagers–should read this book. That is where I think Burrough’s argument is flawed; Sullivan’s belief is that every individual possesses some kind of itch to break out of the Elks club meetings, Dave Matthews Band concerts, and Coulter/Moore book clubs– to be skeptical of what every presents itself as a routine–is truly what conservatism stands for.

This book, though lacking “narrative grace” as Burrough rightfully said, can enlighten more than just the post-graduate crowd. Besides, there are a hell of a lot of kids out there today who read the political narratives of Solzhenitsyn and Hobbes; why can’t Sullivan be added to that list?